This is pre-covid, but I’ll just put this here because it’s the only time I’ll see something like this.
4 Likes
3 Likes
My German neighbour used to believe this crap. She would get so mad at me because I would just laugh at her about it…LOL
But then I went on a news site and they (REPUBs) are actually trying to pass a law…FOR REAL…
2 Likes
Cloud seeding does exist and is being done in places, the concept of dispersing chemicals into the air for a number of reasons is both being used and is under development. Has nothing to do with contrails of course, but this doesn’t mean that the law itself is without merit. Whether or not the representatives who wrote it and voted on it believe that contrails of today are a hazard or not it would still serve to protect Tennessee from future experiments in geoengineering, which I am sure we will see sooner rather than later.
To a certain degree it might be considered laudable for a legislative body to actually enact protective laws before something becomes an issue. It is a rather frequent complaint to see that the law is antiquated and too slow to adapt and keep up with modern trends.
2 Likes
if only they would have been able to Dodge the Ram
2 Likes
On YouTube, my boy Sean of Steel said:
“Dodge the father, Ram the daughter”.
No lie, he lacks a filter.
1 Like
Federal Agency equates being black to being a criminal.
Now this isn’t even filtered through any sort of slanted news media organization, this is from their very own press release.
The claim is that Sheets
“violated federal law by denying employment to a class of job applicants because of their race.”
“Sheetz has maintained a longstanding practice of screening all job applicants for records of criminal conviction and then denying them employment based on those records.”
(bold for emphasis added)
I don’t think “convict” is a race, and they don’t even allege that anyone has been treated differently. Yet some how:
“The EEOC charges that Sheetz’s hiring practices disproportionately screened out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants.” … “The lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by race when making hiring decisions.”
So they argue that
"“Federal law mandates that employment practices causing a disparate impact because of race or other protected classifications must be shown by the employer to be necessary to ensure the safe and efficient performance of the particular jobs at issue,”
If I am to be the most charitable to them in my interpretation here then their argument is that too many non-white people are criminals, therefor the practice of screening applicants for convictions has a disparate impact on non-white applicants and as such it should be illegal to do background checks and opt out of hiring criminals. There are a few other lines where they try to justify their position, but those do not paint their argument in any better a light.
I urge you to read the whole thing yourself and let me know if you’ve managed to interpret their claims any other way.
3 Likes
First of all, record of criminal convictions does not equate criminal. I do not know what you have to do to get something in your permanent record in the States, but this could potentially be for smoking weed as a teenager.
The EEOC charges that Sheetz’s hiring practices disproportionately screened out Black, Native American/Alaska Native and multiracial applicants. Sheetz’s companywide hiring practices violated provisions of Title VII that prohibit disparate impact discrimination, the EEOC says. The lawsuit does not allege that Sheetz was motivated by race when making hiring decisions.
Might mean that they feel this disproportionately hurts blacks and natives because they are equally more targeted by cops and also more likely to get punished for minor offences. (Thats atleast what my understanding is ass a European.)
The importance here is ofcourse how you interpret the wording of the law. Might be the EEOC mainly claims that screening out people with criminal records is not relevant to the jobs.
3 Likes
this is 100% a fact and is one of the reasons why they get into trouble more (or end up getting shot or killed otherwise for no reason), as well as a host of other reasons and causes, among which are the living situations, neighborhoods, schools, etc. they got ghetto’d in.
honestly, the same shit is going on in many EU countries as well (except the getting killed part), especially the UK and France (and probably all EU countries now to a degree)
that all being said, i’m just stating these facts in general. I haven’t looked into what’s going on here with this topic at hand at all.
I think it would be hard to argue that companies should not be allowed to screen for criminal records. (again, just stating an opinion here, no idea whether it’s even relevant to this specific thing)
2 Likes
Being convicted of having committed a crime makes you a criminal. There’s really no other definition for the word (noun), whether you disagree with the laws or not.
If the issue is that the criminal justice system disproportional punishes certain groups for minor offenses then how is it even remotely reasonable to hold Sheetz responsible for the actions of the law and justice system? If that is a problem the state wishes to address suing companies for doing background checks is probably the dumbest possible way to go about it.
1 Like
peak journalism, this is in the World News section
4 Likes
Oh man! Colour me surprised. All this time I thought the National Enquirer was a factual newspaper for the truth. NOT!!!
4 Likes
5 Likes
OMG lol wtf 
3 Likes
IIRC, misdemeanors (resisting arrest, possession of drugs) are on your record for 7 years. Felonies are more permanent, but I think you can sometimes get them removed.
I would have to Google it to be completely sure since I’m not very familiar with it.
3 Likes
3 Likes
Eh, at this point, it’ll only be crazy if a Trump supporter does something beneficial. Even when Jan. 6 happened, I just thought “yup, that’s republicans for ya,” and went about my day.
4 Likes
Myrr. We get a little lost sometimes is all. We forget things too, like nut caches and then have to ru everywhere looking around.
Plant more scorns for us, is all. That’ll set us right. 
2 Likes
There’s gotta be certain circumstances wherein we are allowed to use the R word, no?
3 Likes